A STUDY ON UNIVERSITY STUDENTS VIEW ON ENTOMOPHAGY

To address future food demands, it is crucial to consider both the environmental impact and the nutritional value of food production. While traditional sources of protein like beef, lamb, and pork are nutritionally rich, their production has significant negative environmental effects. In contrast, entomophagy presents a sustainable alternative, offering comparable nutritional benefits with a much lower environmental footprint. Insect farming produces significantly fewer greenhouse gases and requires minimal land use, making it an environmentally friendly option for increasing food production (Myers & Pettigrew, 2018).

The practice of entomophagy is predominant in many parts of the world such as Latin America, Asia and Africa however it is relatively considered as bizarre in most part of the modern world and western culture. These consumers consider the consumption of insects as food to be disgusting as insects are viewed as filthy (C & M, 2017). However while negative perception towards entomophagy is common, the gimmick of insects as culinary breakthrough might raise interest for certain consumers (Tan & House, 2018).

There is very little documentation of edible insects and insect consumption in Malaysia unlike our neighboring countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam etc. Entomophagy is not a common practice here (Ismail, 2015). However the consumption of insects as food has actually been practiced in Malaysia for generations, although it has been confined to certain regions and has never really been widespread throughout Malaysia. Sabah, Sarawak and the northern part of Kelantan bordering Thailand delight in a local delicacy of sago worms and grasshoppers. These sago worms are usually eaten either raw or fried and its flavors are commented with the taste of chicken. The consumption of insects and worms aren’t all that new in most part of South East Asia but with the rising interest of the use of insects at restaurants in Europe and US the consumption of insects is gaining popularity will Malaysians adapt this trend (Jensen & Lieberoth, 2018). The choice for insects are not just for its taste but for also for its practicality and sustainability. The standing of insects as an appreciated, habitually consumed food can be the result culinary knowledge, wider cultural acceptance, established routines of food provisioning and the availability, price, form and taste of products (Menozzi, Sogari, Veneziani, Simoni, & Mora, 2017).

1.2 Problem statement

Consumption of edible insects is viewed as a disgusting food source despite the claims of its nutritional worth and sustainability perk however a lot of restaurants and food manufacturers are embracing insects as food to explore new flavors and in hopes to change the perception of edible insects. It is predicted that insects would be the food of the future as a source for protein and Malaysians may have to adapt to it at one point. (UnitedNations, 2013)

As it stands there is little documentation about Malaysian cognizance towards entomophagy (Ismail, 2015). Since the FAO report, several countries such as Netherlands, Belgium and Turkey ran research and survey on people’s opinion on entomophagy. There has been no similar research in Malaysia.

1.3 Research objectives

This study focuses on gathering Malaysians conception on the consumption, production and concerns of edible insects. The specific objectives of this research are to identify;

• To determine university student’s views on entomophagy.
• To investigate food safety concerns regarding edible insects.
• To investigate insects as a nutritional food source.

Research questions

This study will attempt to answer the following research questions;

• What are the current views of university students about entomophagy?
• How to investigate the food safety concerns for consuming edible insects?
• What are the nutritional value of insects as a food of source?

1.4 Significance of the research

This research will allow students to attain knowledge of entomophagy and its potential as a food. The exposure of entomophagy to students presents a possible strategy to create a demand for insects as food. The use of insects as an alternate food source can provide food security for the future while conserving environmental sustainability of farming. Little research is done in Malaysia on effective strategies in promoting implementation of this practice, specifically among students. The objective of this study is to gain the entomological knowledge of students as due to the rising interest in entomophagy in modernized countries, the core purpose of this research is to study the knowledge, expectations and perception about entomophagy from a specific target group made up of young people. This research will provides insights into the younger generation current perspective about entomophagy and its implications for future culinary trends.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

The possible use of edible insects seems to be really important in terms of safeguarding global security as population would increase so would demand for food. As mentioned by Huis (2013), currently as it stands nearly 2000 species of insects are edible for human consumption among the 2 billion people around the world currently practicing entomophagy. For such reason, there has been several studies that investigated whether consumers (mostly western) are ready to embrace insects as either a substitute or as a whole as a food product. Tan and et al. (2015) states that studies concluded that majority reject the notion of consuming insects due to culture and general disgust and aversion towards insects. Several key factors are responsible to the abhorrence towards insects for consumption have been concluded which ranges from healthy safety issues to sensory and psychological aspects. Just as reported by (Lobo, 2019) acceptance of food strongly depends on both extrinsic and intrinsic factors. Intrinsic meaning the sensory characteristic and extrinsic meaning the biological, cultural and psychological aspects. That being said as mentioned by (Huis, 2013) food preference can change over time and it is not permanent in which he examples the sushi effect that is now accepted by most of the world when most of the world did not partake in the consumption of raw fish.

Insects have always invoke disgust and fear by modern society. The distinction between inedible or edible products is largely centered on cultural practices. As Per view of KouÅ™imská and Adámková (2016), whenever a new product is introduced to a new market or in a culture, people tend to respond with neophobia. For the view of entomophagy, the neophobia has been explained by the two hypotheses by: one is the rejection of insects because of their current knowledge of the insects origin and habitats, and the second is rejection due to anticipated negative post-ingestional consequences.

2.2 The current views of university students about entomophagy

The perception and attitude of insects as food can be influence by internal and external factors of an individual. External factors would include biological and cultural influences and internal would include psychological and sensory quality.

The psychological aspect most relates to the feeling of disgust. According to (Looy, Dunkel and Wood, 2014), most prevailing perception of insect is that they are dirty, disgusting, and affluent with diseases which coincide with western perception as insects as pests rather than edible food. Several studies have confirmed that the perception of younger age group are in fact in line with the perception of disgust (Balzan, Fasolato, Maniero, and Novelli, 2016). However, according to Gere, G., Kovács, Kókai, and Sipos (2017) on condition that the food safety and hygiene is guaranteed and also masking or disguising insects in food, can be a potential to overcome the feeling of disgust that restricts the consumers of edible insects as food. According to (Berg, et al., 2016) this study found that when consumers are given two choices, one being that the insect is served whole and one is processed so it does not look like and insect anymore consumers were more likely to consume the processed insect product rather than the whole insect.

The variation of disgust also varies upon the species of the insects, insects that would most likely give a sense of disgust are those seen in dirty urban environment such as rot, decay and feces. Take for example maggots which are mostly seen in rotting food by most people, so when presented with the famous maggot cheese of Sicily people would react adversely. (O., Reade, & Spence, 2015). Most studies of refusal to eat edible insects are akin to the disgust and fear because of their stigma and relation to contagion (Rozin & Haidt, 2013).

(Myers & Pettigrew, 2018) Suggest that instead of disguising insects within food it is better to associate the consumption of edible insects with memorable experiences. Promoting insect consumption as an exciting or fun activity by developing skills and technique in preparing gourmet insect cuisines (Huis, 2013). Gael also suggests showcasing insect cuisines at food fair and event, high-end restaurants, recipes books, and prominent celebrity chefs to promote edible insects in cooking, cooking classes and cooking program highlighting and featuring insects (O., Reade, & Spence, 2015). While the disgusting perception is considered as the key factor to consumer willingness to eat edible insects, some studies believes that promoting the environmental advantages can act as catalyst or motivation for consumption (House, 2016).

The food safety concerns for consuming edible insects

Although insects have been traditionally been consumed by humans for a long time, there is little scientific literature on the food safety of edible insects (Spiegel, 2016). The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) had reported that the food safety regulation of edible insects has not been studied expansively, this may be because of the fact that edible insects are often perceived as traditional foods of indigenous peoples and are rarely accepted as tradable food (Spiegel, 2016).

As it stands there are more than 2000 species of edible insects, some are completely harmless while some maybe need extra precaution to ensure safe consumption. When it comes to food safety several point of view has to be taken. The potential hazards of insects comes in the form of toxins, allergens, microbial, pathogens and parasites. Some species of insects are able to synthesize natural toxins and some maybe contaminated with pesticides. Ingested and the harm might be very deadly.

Allergens are adverse health effects arising from an immune reactions from certain food. In most cases those allergic to seafood are also allergic to certain insects. Food allergy varies according to regions. Most cases of insect allergy resulted in anaphylactic shock. A report by (Pener, 2014) covered cases in Thailand hospitals whereby 7 cases of anaphylaxis were caused by the consumption of fried crickets and grasshoppers. The risk of allergy in edible insects post as much as any other food allergy. The vast majority of consumers eating edible insects will probably have little to no allergic reactions particularly if there was no history of allergy however edible insects should still be eaten with caution. (Bellucoand et al., 2015).

Data concerning microbiology of insects and their prospective for present pathogens are mostly in studies about insects as pests and feed rather than food for human consumption. However the insects were investigated for their risk as vectors for foodborne pathogens in farming environments. As such these data are of limited value in the context of insects fit for human consumption. However found studies whereby four edible commercial insects displayed a high microbial load primarily composed of Gram-positive bacteria, along with total coliforms and fecal (Belluco, et al., 2015). These insects came from a closed-cycle insect farm made for human consumption. Another study by Klunder (2012) evaluated the microbiological levels of edible insects in the form of fresh, boiled, roasted and refrigeration. Klunder found that roasting did not kill all Enterobacteriaceae microbe and advised that boiling be done first. Scientific evidence concerning the microbiological safety of edible insects is sporadic, feeble, and hardly originates from research designed ad hoc. As such, information of edible insect microbiology in the food setting should be addressed by a definite, targeted research; precise attention should be focused to potential pathogens, to the effect of correct storage and handling, and to effective sanitization treatments able to safeguard consumer health (Belluco and et al., 2015)

Parasites poses a potential health hazard relative to edible insect consumption. Parasitic existence was well documented in a review regarding foodborne intestinal cases in Southeast Asia with the seclusion of six different species of insects. Evidence from the insect analysis and human autopsies proposed that the possible foodborne transmission of parasites affiliated to Lecithodendriid and Plagiorchid because these insects are commonly eaten in the region. Suggestion of hazardous parasites in edible insects is erratic in the scientific literature. However, an appropriately managed closed farm surroundings would lack all the criteria necessary for the conclusion of a parasite life cycles. In every case, and mainly with harvested as supposed to farmed insects, suitable management before ingesting, relying on cooking and storage, could diminish risks (Belluco and et al., 2015)

Edible insects for human consumption must be well-thought-out in the context of safety standards for foods. Thus, assessment of hazards commonly referred in food process is beneficial and essential to collect current evidence, assess data gaps, and isolate future research. Edible insect has been consumed worldwide over centuries, so this history of consumption can be easily adopted. However, vital scientific data on possible foodborne hazards in edible insects are deficient; searching the scientific literature exposes the scarcity of information and highlights (Spiegel, 2016).

The nutritional value of insects as a food of source

In early human history insects were a valuable source of protein, the eggs, pupae, larvae and adult insects were a valuable source of protein with the absence of meat. (Sponheimer, Ruiter, Lee-Thorp, & Spath, 2015). However protein is not the nutrition edible insects are good for. The nutritional value of edible insects can be very diverse mainly due of the large variety and numbers of edible species. Nutritional value vary greatly among species and growth stage of the insects and cooking methods. (Finke and Oonincx, 2014). In some instances the nutritional value of certain species was healthier than pork, beef and chicken (KouÅ™imská and Adámková, 2016). Most edible insects provides adequate proteins and energy in the human diet, in addition to sufficing the amino acid requirements. Some edible insects have a high content of mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids; they are rich in trace elements such as copper, magnesium, iron, phosphorus, manganese, zinc and selenium, along with vitamins like pantothenic acid, riboflavin, folic acid, and biotin in some cases (Rumpold and Schlüter, 2013)

Edible insects pose no lack of nutritional value. Insects are a nutritionally interesting food source, and may be included as a part of a healthy diet for consumers in the future. They can also be utilized as a nutritional supplement for certain special diets for example bodybuilders or people trying to lose weight. Adopting some potentially suitable species of insects into the standard diet requires distinct and standard processing conditions of their farming as well as the comprehensive monitoring of their growth. The EFSA has already assessed toxicological risks and hygienic correlated to edible insects, however more research on their nutrient and composition summary should be assessed in order to be able to fully implement edible insects as food in regular diet. (KouÅ™imská and Adámková, 2016). However, it has to be kept in view that the nutritional value of insects is highly dependent and influenced by the feed. This factor also opens up possibilities for enrichment, regulation, and production of certain insect ingredients. (Rumpold and Schlüter, 2013).

CHAPTER 3 : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter provides a summary of the research design, population sampling, and data collection procedures. Research methodology encompasses analysis procedures and questionnaire that is fashioned to assess the independent conceptual determinants that effects the perception of culinary students on the on the usage and consumption of edible insects.

3.2 Research design

This research puts focus on perception and knowledge of culinary students of edible insects. The approaches and method of this research were quantitative in nature. Questionnaires have been used to perform this research. Questionnaires methods are relatively a cheap and quick way of acquiring and processing a big sums of data from a big populace (McLeod, 2018). Close-ended responses will be composed from the multiple choice and Likert scale questions. Quantitative method emphases on the capability to illustrate comprehensive statistical analysis. Surveys will be used to collect primary data in the usage of the questionnaires, as in regards to the questions being a multiple choice and Likert scale. By adopting this method it will provide a general view of people’s opinion on the subject matter.

3.3 Theoretical and conceptual framework

This research will be adopting the framework from the research of Gael Myers and Simone Pettigrew tittle “A qualitative exploration of the factors underlying seniors' receptiveness to entomophagy”

Figure 1 (Myers & Pettigrew, 2018)

The working theoretical concept would be as follows.

Figure 2

3.4 Study sites

The focus of the study is towards university students hence the study site were conducted at university campuses. The sites in which the survey were at Taylor’s Lakeside Campus, Monash University and KDU University College.

3.5 Data sources and data collection methods

There are primarily two types of data used in research and these are primary and secondary data. Primary data consist of data collected to addresses the stated research problem put forth by the researcher. Secondary data on the other hand however are data utilized for the purpose of the findings data from other similar research. The benefit of primary data is that it provides a holistic summary that the research topic is created under full attention. Nonetheless, it is a very time consuming process to gather all the data and compile them. Secondary data alternatively, saves time as it is based on existing research and is a collection of them.

For this study, primary data will be collected. From the analysis of questionnaire from the participants of the selected universities, the collection of primary data will be collected from them. This questionnaire was be piloted during in August of 2019.

3.5.1 Research instruments

The research instrument utilized for this study were Google forms and physical paper handouts. The use of Google form had its advantages such as being cheaper and easier to tabulate but in terms of getting data was slow. Handing out physical survey copies were a lot easier and data collection was relatively fast however it was a more expensive option. A pilot test was conducted in KDU University College first by collecting 20 respondents to test the validity and reliability of the questions as well as any errors. The questionnaire were responded by university students only. The data collected was then analyzed through the SPSS software.

3.5.3 Validity and reliability instrument

To test the reliability of the questionnaire, 22 respondents were gathered for the pilot test and a Cronbach test was run to test the reliability for each section of the questionnaire. In order to pass the reliability test the value of the Cronbach Alpha needs to be >0.8 The result was as follows.

1. Reliability for view

1. Reliability for safety concerns

1. Reliability for nutrition

1. Reliability for acceptance

3.5.4 Research population and sampling technique

The research would encompass university student candidates within KDU University College, Shah Alam, Taylor’s University Lakeside Campus, and Monash University. An estimate of 384 responses was attained for this research through survey questionnaire dependent on the sample size table of Krejcie and Morgan as there are over 1 million university students in Malaysia (Education, 2019). Stratified random sampling technique will be used for this research. Large sample size can be a representation of the population. This sampling call for population to appropriately partake in the study and data was collected after as the target group is a specific group with different background.

3.6 Data analysis and statistical methods

The data collected will be process through the SPSS software and certain tests will testify against the data collected. The purpose of these test to identify the correlations between the subsets of the questionnaire and how it ultimately affect students acceptance towards entomophagy.

3.6.1 Chi-square test

This Chi-Square statistical test is commonly used for assessing correlation between variables. The test is suitable for this study is due to the quantitative method nature that is utilized and the level of measurement uses of nominal data. It is denoted as an independent if the result in not having a correlation in the population. Chi-square statistics is repetitively utilized to inspect Cross Tabulation with its test of Independence variables. Cross tabulation characterizes the utilization of two categorical variables concurrently, likewise a crossings of variable categories variables resulted in the table cells. The cross tabulation gathered is through SPSS.

3.6.2 Logistic regression

Logistic regression acts as an all for all analytical data. It is appropriate to be utilized when dependent variable is binary. Logistic Regression explains data by testifying the relationship from one dependent variable to two or more independent variable. Given the expectations binary logistics regression would be if the dependable variable is dichotomous by nature.

CHAPTER 4 : DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT

The questionnaire consist of 6 different sections and 39 questions which are Section A: Demographic, Section B: View towards Entomophagy (Consumption of edible insects) Section C: Food Safety concerns in entomophagy, Section D: Nutrition of edible insects, Section E: Acceptance towards entomophagy, Sect ion F: General Questions. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the whole set of questionnaire is 0.887.

4.1 Demographic information

This section consist of the data accumulated regarding the demographic information of the respondents.

4.1.1 Demographic information – age group

Table 1 - Demographic Information (Age Groups)

About 384 people has responded to answer this set of questionnaire through random sampling. In this collected data of people, there is 8.9% (34) of respondents are below 17 years old, while 64.3% (247) of respondents are between 18 – 21 years old, 21.1%(81) are between 22 – 25 years old, 5.5%(21) are between 26 – 29 years old and the remaining 0.3%(1) is older than 30 years old.

4.1.2 Demographic information - gender

Table 2 - Demographic Information (Gender)

Within the 384 respondent’s, 48.4% (186) of respondents were male, while the remaining 51.6% (198) of respondents were female.

4.1.3 Demographic information - education level

Table 3 - Demographic Information (Educational Level)

Within the 384 respondents, 41.7% (160) of the respondents are Diploma sudents, and 52.1% (200) of the respondents are degree students, 4.9%(19) are pursuing Master’s and 1.3% are Ph.D. 

4.1.4 Demographic information – ethnicity

Table 4 - Demographic Information (Ethnicity)

Of the 384 respondents 19.8%(76) were of Malays ethnicity, 49.7%(191) were Chinese, 12.2% (47) were Indians, 0.8%(3) were Iban, 6.5%(25) were Kadazan, 10.9%(42) identified as others. The majority of the respondents were Chinese as the area survey were private institutions.

4.2 Frequency table for view towards entomorphagy (consumption of edible insects)

4.2.1 Frequency for eagerness to try new food

Table 5 – View towards entomophagy (Eager to try)

To measure respondents attitude towards trying new food of any kind, respondents were asked to rate their eagerness to try new food. Within the 384 respondents 3.9 %( 15) were very reluctant to try new food. 7.8 %( 30) were reluctant to try new food. 28.9 %( 111) of the respondents reacted neutrally towards it. 33.6 %( 129) were eager to try new food and 25.8%(99) were very eager to try new food.

4.2.2 Frequency for whether insects are considered edible

Table 6 - View towards entomophagy (Insects are edible)

From the table it illustrates that 39.3 %( 151) of the respondents agree and strongly agrees that certain insects are edible. While 33.6 %( 129) of the respondents disagree and strongly disagree that insects can be edible. 27.1 %( 104) were neutral on the issue of insects being edible. As mentioned by (Finke & Oonincx, 2014) there are more 6000 insects species that are edible given proper preparation. The results however shows that over a third of the respondent’s would not consider insects to be edible.

4.2.3 Frequency for whether respondents believe that over 2 billion people consumes insects

Table 7 - View towards entomophagy (2 Billion people eating insects)

This questions asks whether respondents would believe that over 2 billion people consume insects on a regular basis according to (UnitedNations, 2013). About 26.6 % (102) totally disagree with this fact however 33.9 % (130) of the respondents agree with this fact and are aware of it. The remaining 39.9 % (152) are neutral towards the notion.

4.2.4 Frequency for whether respondents believe that the FAO is encouraging people to eat insects

Table 8 - View towards entomophagy (FOA encouragement)

This questions asks whether respondents would are aware that the FOA would encourage the consumption of edible insects. About 26.6 % (102) totally disagree with this fact however 33.9 % (130) of the respondents agree with this fact and are aware of it. The remaining 39.9 % (152) are neutral towards the notion.

4.2.5 Frequency for whether respondents are aware that insects are consumed in Malaysia

Table 9 - View towards entomophagy (Malaysian consuming insects)

This questions asks whether respondents are aware that Malaysians in Sabah, Sarawak and Kelantan consumes insects. From the results about 22.9 % (88) totally disagree that insects are being consumed in Malaysia however 44.3 % (170) of the respondents agree with this fact and are aware of it. The remaining 32.8 % (126) are neutral towards this information.

4.3 Frequency table for food safety concerns in entomorphagy (consumption of edible insects)

4.3.1 Frequency table for whether insects can be detrimental to health

Table 10 –Food Safety Concerns in Entomophagy (Detrimental)

The question asks whether eating insects can be detrimental to health. According to (Rumpold & Schlüter, 2013) and (Belluco, et al., 2015) the risk of eating insects depends on the species and preparation technique. However from the table above 29.4 % (113) disagree that eating insects can be harmful to health but 26.9 % (103) agree that eating insects can be harmful to health. Almost half agree and half disagree, the remaining 43.8% (168) were neutral which could reflect that meant yes and no depending on the insects.

4.3.2 Frequency table for whether eathing raw insects can be safe

Table 11 –Food Safety Concerns in Entomophagy (Raw insect consumption safe)

However from the table above 65.9 % (253) of the respondents disagree that raw insects is safe to consume and 12.8 % (45) agrees that it’s safe to consume raw insect. Referring back to both Rumphold and Belluco safety depends on species and preparation, raw insects tends to be more risky as there can be more factors when it comes to poisoning.

4.3.3 Frequency table for whether allergies are a concern in entomophagy.

Table 12 –Food Safety Concerns in Entomophagy (Allergy Concerns)

From the table above the questions asked the allergy concerns of the respondents. A large majority of 61.7 % (237) agrees that allergies are a major concern when it comes to eating insects and a small 18.2 % (77) disagree that allergy is an issue when consuming insects. The remaining respondents remained neutral, 20.1% (77).

4.3.4 Frequency table for whether pathogens are a concern in entomophagy.

Table 13 –Food Safety Concerns in Entomophagy (Pathogens Concerns)

From the table above the questions asked the pathogen concerns of the respondents. A large majority of 57.8 % (222) agrees that pathogens are a major concern when it comes to eating insects and a small 12.2 % (47) disagree that pathogen is an issue when consuming insects. The remaining respondents remained neutral, 29.9% (115).

4.3.5 Frequency table for whether parasites are a concern in entomophagy.

Table 14–Food Safety Concerns in Entomophagy (Parasites Concerns)

From the table above the questions asked the parasitic concerns of the respondents. Overwhelmingly a large majority of 70.6% (271) agrees that parasites are a major concern when it comes to eating insects and a small 9.3 % (26) disagree that parasites is an issue when consuming insects. The remaining respondents remained neutral, 20.1% (77).

4.3.6 Frequency table for whether the risk preparing and eating insects is just the same as any other food.

Table 15 –Food Safety Concerns in Entomophagy (Risks)

From the table the respondents review whether eating insects are more risky than conventional food. A majority of 43.5 % (167) disagree stating that eating insects is more risky than conventional food. Over a third of the respondents however 36.0 % (138) agree that eating insects is just as risky as conventional food.

4.4 Frequency table for nutritional knowledge of edible insects

4.4.1 Frequency table for whether edible insects are a good source of nutrition.

Table 16 –Nutrition of edible insects (Good Source)

About 54.7 % (210) of the respondents believes that insects are a good source of nutrition with a low 13.5 % (52) believing that insects are not nutritional. The remaining 31.8 % remained neutral on the statement.

4.4.2 Frequency table for whether edible insects can be more nutritous than conventional meat.

Table 17 –Nutrition of edible insects (More nutritious than conventional meat)

About 36.4 % (140) of the respondents agrees that insects are more nutritious than conventional meat more than respondents who disagree with a low 27.9 % (107) disagreeing that insects are not. The remaining 35.7 % remained neutral on the question. 

4.4.3 Frequency table for whether eating edible insects is similar to eating junk food.

Table 4.16 –Nutrition of edible insects (Similar to junk food)

About only 14 % (50) of the respondents agrees that eating insects is akin to eating junk food while overwhelming amount of respondents disagree 61.7 % (237) . The remaining 25.3 % (97) remained neutral on the question. 

4.4.4 Frequency table for whether insects has more protein compared to beef

Table 4.17 –Nutrition of edible insects (More protein compared to beef)

About 38.5 % (148) of the respondents agrees that insects has more protein than beef, less of the respondents disagree 28.3 % (109) . The remaining 33.1 % (127) remained neutral on the question. As according to (KouÅ™imská & Adámková, 2016) insects do have more protein than beef

4.4.5 Frequency table for whether edible insects can be used as a nutritional supplement.

Table 4.18 –Nutrition of edible insects (Insects as nutritional supplement)

About 40.6 % (156) of the respondents agrees that insects can be used as a nutritional supplement. Only 28.4 % (109) disagree. The remaining 31.0 % (119) remained neutral on the question. 

4.5 Frequency table for acceptance towards entomophagy

4.5.1 Frequency table for whether grasshoppers & locust are palatable.

Table 4.19–Acceptance towards entomophagy (Grasshoppers & Locust)

From the question respondents were asked how palatable grasshoppers and locust were. 30.5 % (117) would agree that they are palatable and 35.6 % would disagree that they are palatable. Majority would find grasshoppers and locust not palatable.

4.5.2 Frequency table for whether crickets are palatable.

 Table 4.20–Acceptance towards entomophagy (Crickets)

From the question respondents were asked how palatable crickets were. 30.5 % (117) would agree that they are palatable and 39.1 % (150) would disagree that they are palatable. Majority would find crickets not palatable.

4.5.3 Frequency table for whether sago worms are palatable.

 Table 4.21–Acceptance towards entomophagy (Sago Worms)

From the question respondents were asked how palatable sago worms are. 31.2 % (120) would agree that they are palatable and 43.7 % (168) would disagree that they are palatable. Majority would find sago worms not palatable.

4.5.4 Frequency table for whether silk worms are palatable.

Table 4.22–Acceptance towards entomophagy (Silk Worms)

From the question respondents were asked how palatable silk worms are. 26.8% (103) would agree that they are palatable and 45.9 % (176) would disagree that they are palatable. Majority would find silk worms not palatable.

4.5.5 Frequency table for whether insects are more palatable when served whole.

Table 4.23–Acceptance towards entomophagy (Insects served whole)

From the question respondents were asked how palatable insects would be when served whole. 16.4% (63) would agree that they are palatable and 59.1% (227) would disagree that they are palatable when served whole. Majority would find insects served whole not palatable.

4.5.6 Frequency table for whether insects are more palatable when served in powdered form.

Table 4.24–Acceptance towards entomophagy (Insects served powdered)

From the question respondents were asked how palatable insects would be when served through powdered form. 32.3% (124) would agree that they are palatable and 40.6% (156) would disagree that they are palatable when served whole. Majority would find insects served powdered not palatable.

4.5.7 Frequency table for whether insects can be consumed as snacks.

Table 4.25–Acceptance towards entomophagy (Insects as snacks)

From the question respondents were asked if insects could be eaten as snacks. 39% (150) would agree and 35.2 % (135) would disagree. Majority would find insects as snacks acceptable. 

4.5.8 Frequency table for whether insects can be eaten as a meal.

Table 4.26–Acceptance towards entomophagy (Insects as meals)

From the question respondents were asked if insects could be eaten as a full meal. 13% (50) would agree and 67.4 % (225) would disagree. Majority would find insects as meals unacceptable. 

4.5.9 Frequency table for whether insects can be eaten as a protein supplement.

Table 4.27–Acceptance towards entomophagy (Insects as protein supplement)

From the question respondents were asked if insects could be taken as protein supplement. 46.1% (177) would agree and 28.6 % (110) would disagree. Majority would find insects as protein supplement as acceptable. 

4.5.10 Frequency table for whether people would reject eating edible insects because it is disgusting.

Table 4.28–Acceptance towards entomophagy (rejection as disgust)

From the question respondents were asked if people would reject eating edible insects because it is disgusting. 87.5% (336) would agree and 4.4 % (17) would disagree. Majority agrees that people would reject eating insects as it is considered disgusting. 

4.5.11 Frequency table for whether people would reject eating edible insects because negative taste expectation.

Table 4.29–Acceptance towards entomophagy (Negative taste expectation)

From the question respondents were asked if people would reject eating edible insects because it is negative taste expectation. 81% (331) would agree and 4.4 % (17) would disagree. Majority agrees that people would reject eating insects due to negative taste expectation. 

4.5.12 Frequency table for whether people would reject eating edible insects because religious restrictions.

 Table 4.30–Acceptance towards entomophagy (Religious restrictions)

From the question respondents were asked if people would reject eating edible insects because of religious restriction. 39.6% (152) would agree and 15.8 % (99) would disagree. Majority agrees that people would reject eating insects due to religious restriction. 

4.5.13 Frequency table for whether people would reject eating edible insects because safety concerns.

Table 4.31–Acceptance towards entomophagy (Safety Concerns)

From the question respondents were asked if people would reject eating edible insects because of safety concerns. 73.1% (281) would agree and 7.8 % (30) would disagree. Majority agrees that people would reject eating insects due to safety concerns. 

4.5.14 Frequency table for whether celebrity chefs could encorage people to try edible insects.

 Table 4.31–Acceptance towards entomophagy (Celebrity Chef Encouragement)

From the question respondents were asked if people think celebrity chefs could encourage people try edible insects. 48.2% (185) would agree and 16.7 % (64) would disagree. Majority agrees that celebrity chefs could encourage people to try edible insects. 

4.5.15 Frequency table for whether food critics could encourage people to try edible insects.

Table 4.32–Acceptance towards entomophagy (Food Critics)

From the question respondents were asked if people think food critics could encourage people try edible insects. 49.3% (189) would agree and 16.1 % (62) would disagree. Majority agrees that food critics could encourage people to try edible insects. 

4.5.16 Frequency table for whether availability of edible insects in renown restaurants would encourage people to try edible insects.

 Table 4.33–Acceptance towards entomophagy (Renown Restaurants)

From the question respondents were asked if people think renown restaurants could encourage people try edible insects. 42.7% (164) would agree and 22.1 % (85) would disagree. Majority agrees that famous restaurant could encourage people to try edible insects. 

4.6 Frequency table for general knowledge of respondents

4.6.1 frequency table for whether respondents are willing totry edible insects.

Table 4.34–General Knowledge (Willing to try)

Based on the table 27.6 % (106) respondents are willing to try edible insects in the future. 38 % (146) would not consider trying but 34.4 % (132) of the respondents may try edible insects in the future.

4.6.1 Frequency table for whether respondents consider certain insects to be halal.

Table 4.35–General Knowledge (HALAL)

There were a total of 103 respondents who were Muslims. Of the 103, 66 % (68) of the Muslim respondents would consider certain insects to be halal and 34 % (35) would not consider insects to be halal. 

4.7 Chi – square test analysis

4.7.1 Relationship between view and acceptance

Table 4.36–Chi Square test between view and acceptance

The value of test statistics is 1684.559. The above footnote for respective statistic points out that expected cell-count assumption: no cell had expected count less-than 5, so this assumption was met. P-value of the test statistics is p = .000 which is lower than significance level (α = 0.05), thus null hypothesis is rejected. Rather it has been concluded that there’s not adequate evidence to recommend an association between view and acceptance.

4.7.2 Relationship between view and knowledge safety concerns

Table 4.37–Chi Square test between view and knowledge on safety concerns

There is a significant difference between view on entomophagy and knowledge on safety concerns at x^2 = 160.500, p = 0.000 at 0.05 level of significance, therefore hypotheses Ho is rejected. There is no adequate evidence indicating a relationship between view and knowledge on safety concerns.

4.7.3 Relationship between view and knowledge on nutrition

Table 4.37–Chi Square test between view and knowledge on nutrition

There is a significant difference between view on entomophagy and knowledge on nutrition at x^2 = 777.862, p = 0.000 at 0.05 level of significance, therefore hypotheses Ho is rejected. There is also value of p is less than .05 thus there are no evidence which proves relationship between view and knowledge on nutrition.

 4.8 SIMPLE LINEAR REGRESSION

Simple linear regression was analyzed through SPSS after all view, safety, nutrition and acceptance variable was computed. The table below shows the model summary, ANOVA and coefficients.

Linear regression for View and Acceptance:

Table 4.38–Simple Linear Progression for View, Acceptance, Safety and Nutrition

According to the table above, 53.2% of the variance in view is explained by acceptance, safety, and nutrition. There is only a slight positive correlation between views on entomophagy and acceptance, safety, and nutrition. In the above table, the significance table shows that p-values of all the independent variables are lower than 0.05, indicating that the independent variables' coefficients are statistically significant. For students seeking assignment help, understanding these coefficients is crucial. Here, beta coefficients enable the comparison of the relative strengths of variables, and in all cases, the beta coefficients are less than 1. The standard error of estimates is .55831, which shows that the chances of error in linear regression are minimal, a detail that a good paraphrasing tool should accurately convey.

Also Read-Background of Galaxy Chocolate - The Complete History

UPTO56%

Avail The Benefit Today!

To View this & another 50000+ free

Enter Email

Submit